Nagesh S K wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I am new to linux. 2 weeks ago I downloaded ubuntu linux from
> http://www.ubuntu.com/ and have installed it on an AMD64 system. It is
> working very well and I m happy with it. Now I am getting broadband
> connection for that system and would like to know do I need to have
> any additional protection like a firewall/antivirus/spyware blocker
> etc like I do on my windows system. I was under the impression that a
> linux system is secure by default because of the way it is built and
> operates.


I've never had anything like anti-virus software on my ubuntu machine,
and I've never needed it. Windows started with the assumption "The user
is the admin, and can do anything they want." No Unix system was ever
built with that assumption. Back in the 70s, when Unix was getting
going, the question on the minds of its designers was, "How do we keep
this system secure?" Linux inherited a lot of ideas from its Unix
ancestors.


I use FireFox to browse the web.

-- lawrence

Den Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:07:34 +0530 skrev Nagesh S K:

>Now I am getting broadband
> connection for that system and would like to know do I need to have any
> additional protection like a firewall/antivirus/spyware blocker etc like
> I do on my windows system.
Not really. But you could save some traffic using MoBlock, since you are
using p2p.
> I was under the impression that a linux
> system is secure by default because of the way it is built and operates.
> If I am wrong can you please let me know what additional soft wares to
> install and how to do it. My internet usage includes general surfing,
> usenet, P2P etc.
It is. I read once, "I have antivirus on my linux, not for myself, but
for my friends, who get files from me"

Nagesh S K wrote:
> Hi All

> I am new to linux. 2 weeks ago I downloaded ubuntu linux from
> http://www.ubuntu.com/ and have installed it on an AMD64 system. It is
> working very well and I m happy with it. Now I am getting broadband
> connection for that system and would like to know do I need to have
> any additional protection like a firewall/antivirus/spyware blocker
> etc like I do on my windows system. I was under the impression that a
> linux system is secure by default because of the way it is built and
> operates.

Your linux system is secure if you use it in a reasonable way. You
don't need any additional software IMO. But you should
- keep your system up-to-date
- use strong passwords
- regularly backup your data

> If I am wrong can you please let me know what additional
> soft wares to install and how to do it. My internet usage includes
> general surfing, usenet, P2P etc.

HTH,
Niklaus

Nagesh S K wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I am new to linux. 2 weeks ago I downloaded ubuntu linux from
> http://www.ubuntu.com/ and have installed it on an AMD64 system. It is
> working very well and I m happy with it. Now I am getting broadband
> connection for that system and would like to know do I need to have
> any additional protection like a firewall/antivirus/spyware blocker
> etc like I do on my windows system. I was under the impression that a
> linux system is secure by default because of the way it is built and
> operates. If I am wrong can you please let me know what additional
> soft wares to install and how to do it. My internet usage includes
> general surfing, usenet, P2P etc.
>
> Regards
>
> S K Nagesh

Get a router that has a hard firewall and enable it and that's all
you'll need if you keep your Ubuntu install up-to-date.

P

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Nagesh S K wrote:
>
>
> Hi All
>
> I am new to linux. 2 weeks ago I downloaded ubuntu linux from
> http://www.ubuntu.com/ and have installed it on an AMD64 system. It is
> working very well and I m happy with it. Now I am getting broadband
> connection for that system and would like to know do I need to have
> any additional protection like a firewall/antivirus/spyware blocker
> etc like I do on my windows system. I was under the impression that a
> linux system is secure by default because of the way it is built and

It's more secure. Nothing is perfect.

> operates. If I am wrong can you please let me know what additional
> soft wares to install and how to do it. My internet usage includes
> general surfing, usenet, P2P etc.

I'd suggest picking up a hardware router, or "broadband router" as
they're sometimes misnamed on the shelf at Wal*Mart. It will sit
between your computer and the world so that even if you happen to
misconfigure something on your computer you have a fair amount of
protection. Anyone poking around from the outside will generally see
the router, not your computer. If you buy the wireless type, make sure
you set up WPA encryption even if you don't use it so your neighbors
aren't stealing your bandwidth.

Beyond that, keep everything updated. There's really no pressing need
for any antivirus or spyware software. If you browse with Firefox
there's a couple addons like NoScript that you should probably install,
but that's about it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkhyXpwACgkQUZCI41IC43iO9ACgl6VEO2tvCj vy/yqV6RBwzniz
RYQAni4dzqvOxAV2ixJcGJmyOI0y6w7Y
=jcDW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Sparky wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Nagesh S K wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I am new to linux. 2 weeks ago I downloaded ubuntu linux from
>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ and have installed it on an AMD64 system. It is
>> working very well and I m happy with it. Now I am getting broadband
>> connection for that system and would like to know do I need to have
>> any additional protection like a firewall/antivirus/spyware blocker
>> etc like I do on my windows system. I was under the impression that a
>> linux system is secure by default because of the way it is built and
>
> It's more secure. Nothing is perfect.
>
>> operates. If I am wrong can you please let me know what additional
>> soft wares to install and how to do it. My internet usage includes
>> general surfing, usenet, P2P etc.
>
> I'd suggest picking up a hardware router, or "broadband router" as
> they're sometimes misnamed on the shelf at Wal*Mart. It will sit
> between your computer and the world so that even if you happen to
> misconfigure something on your computer you have a fair amount of
> protection. Anyone poking around from the outside will generally see
> the router, not your computer. If you buy the wireless type, make sure
> you set up WPA encryption even if you don't use it so your neighbors
> aren't stealing your bandwidth.
>
> Beyond that, keep everything updated. There's really no pressing need
> for any antivirus or spyware software. If you browse with Firefox
> there's a couple addons like NoScript that you should probably install,
> but that's about it.
>
So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in windows,
none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for Linux
handle cookies differently?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

User wrote:

>> Beyond that, keep everything updated. There's really no pressing need
>> for any antivirus or spyware software. If you browse with Firefox
>> there's a couple addons like NoScript that you should probably install,
>> but that's about it.
>>
> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in windows,
> none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for Linux
> handle cookies differently?

Cookies are handled however you configure the handling of them, on
either platform. My preference is to accept for that session and then
drop them all on the floor, with very few exceptions.

Spyware is no more an issue for Linux than viruses are, for similar
reasons.

Of those "8,000+" you elude to above, how many are actual malware and
how many are more "nuisance" issues? SpyBot, indeed any such software,
tends to slap the BadThing(tm) label on just about anything it can
possibly slap it on. Web bugs, lots of mostly innocuous scripts, and
just about every cookie that's ever been remotely associated with a
tracking site. Those things are certainly undesirable, but hardly
spyware/malware. And the aforementioned NoScript addon (and possibly
others) deal with the bulk of it quite nicely.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkhyZrsACgkQUZCI41IC43juHgCgg1H0C4lPzg gxm4uF3rRa9brZ
+NUAniJg5AtmtoPGWKLsHntwxJdnTp9z
=jzaa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 07/07/2008 11:38 AM User scribbled:



>>
> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in windows,
> none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for Linux
> handle cookies differently?

what 8000+ are you referring to here?
Firefox doesn't do any spying I've ever heard of.

jrg wrote:
> On 07/07/2008 11:38 AM User scribbled:
>
>
>
>> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in windows,
>> none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for Linux
>> handle cookies differently?
>
> what 8000+ are you referring to here?
> Firefox doesn't do any spying I've ever heard of.

I just installed SpyBot S&D in my daughters XP laptop and when I ran
"immunize" it claimed to block 191 cookies, and 8,792 each of images,
installations, and pop ups in the Firefox section.

On 07/10/2008 09:09 PM User scribbled:

> jrg wrote:
>> On 07/07/2008 11:38 AM User scribbled:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in windows,
>>> none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for Linux
>>> handle cookies differently?
>> what 8000+ are you referring to here?
>> Firefox doesn't do any spying I've ever heard of.
>
> I just installed SpyBot S&D in my daughters XP laptop and when I ran
> "immunize" it claimed to block 191 cookies, and 8,792 each of images,
> installations, and pop ups in the Firefox section.

thats /all/ stuff coming from outside - FF has /nothing/ to do with it.
FF handles cookies by your instructions, pop up as well.

Learn your software

In jrg:

[Snip...]

> thats /all/ stuff coming from outside - FF has /nothing/ to do with it.
> FF handles cookies by your instructions, pop up as well.

Right, but phrickin' Mercun consumers don't seem to understand even good
userland apps like FF are toast hosted by a POS OS like DozeAnything.

> Learn your software

....and the real source of almost all net sewage--M$ botnets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6752853.stm

It says a lot about the M$ mindset, where userland and OS are the same.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
I toss GoogleGroup posts from gitgo (http://improve-usenet.org).

jrg wrote:
> On 07/10/2008 09:09 PM User scribbled:
>
>> jrg wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2008 11:38 AM User scribbled:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in windows,
>>>> none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for Linux
>>>> handle cookies differently?
>>> what 8000+ are you referring to here?
>>> Firefox doesn't do any spying I've ever heard of.
>> I just installed SpyBot S&D in my daughters XP laptop and when I ran
>> "immunize" it claimed to block 191 cookies, and 8,792 each of images,
>> installations, and pop ups in the Firefox section.
>
> thats /all/ stuff coming from outside - FF has /nothing/ to do with it.

I never said it did.
When I said "8000+ Firefox spyware" I was referring to the quantity of
spyware items that SpyBot S&D supposedly blocks when you click immunize.
By the way, the grand total FF + IE is 80,000+. I do believe that they
exaggerate some.

> FF handles cookies by your instructions, pop up as well.
>
> Learn your software

Learn how to read

"User" wrote in message
news:AZqdnTGCpc_7HerVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@trueband.net ...
> jrg wrote:
>> On 07/10/2008 09:09 PM User scribbled:
>>
>>> jrg wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2008 11:38 AM User scribbled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in
>>>>> windows, none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for
>>>>> Linux handle cookies differently?
>>>> what 8000+ are you referring to here?
>>>> Firefox doesn't do any spying I've ever heard of.
>>> I just installed SpyBot S&D in my daughters XP laptop and when I ran
>>> "immunize" it claimed to block 191 cookies, and 8,792 each of images,
>>> installations, and pop ups in the Firefox section.
>>
>> thats /all/ stuff coming from outside - FF has /nothing/ to do with it.
>
> I never said it did.
> When I said "8000+ Firefox spyware" I was referring to the quantity of
> spyware items that SpyBot S&D supposedly blocks when you click immunize.
> By the way, the grand total FF + IE is 80,000+. I do believe that they
> exaggerate some.
>
>> FF handles cookies by your instructions, pop up as well.
>>
>> Learn your software
>
> Learn how to read
>
>
>

Spybot calls all cookies "spyware" ?
It's just a cookie.
Sounds like a useless program.

Hobbes wrote:

> "User" wrote:
>> jrg wrote:
>>> User scribbled:
>>>> jrg wrote:
>>>>> User scribbled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in
>>>>>> windows, none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does
>>>>>> FF for Linux handle cookies differently?

Cookies are just cookies, no matter your operating system. Set your
options to block/ selectively block/ "don't ask me again"/ and other
nice options.

>>>>> what 8000+ are you referring to here?
>>>>> Firefox doesn't do any spying I've ever heard of.
>>>>
>>>> I just installed SpyBot S&D in my daughters XP laptop and when I
>>>> ran "immunize" it claimed to block 191 cookies, and 8,792 each of
>>>> images, installations, and pop ups in the Firefox section.
>>>
>>> thats /all/ stuff coming from outside - FF has /nothing/ to do with
>>> it.
>>
>> I never said it did.
>> When I said "8000+ Firefox spyware" I was referring to the quantity
>> of spyware items that SpyBot S&D supposedly blocks when you click

But you didn't say that, hence the questions and confusion. "the 8,000+
Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks" would tell a non-experienced reader
that Firefox was .. bad?

>> immunize. By the way, the grand total FF + IE is 80,000+. I do
>> believe that they exaggerate some.

"Shock and Awe."

>>> FF handles cookies by your instructions, pop up as well.
>>>
>
> Spybot calls all cookies "spyware" ?
> It's just a cookie.
> Sounds like a useless program.

SpybotS&D can be useful for Windows users who don't practice Safe Hex
(which is most of 'em, I suppose). It's good at rooting out trojans and
other maladies. But don't bother using the "Immunize" features, which,
as I understand it, use the Registry to set blocks on cookies and web
sites it feels may be malicious.

But as you said, cookies can be annoying, but are harmless.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

On 07/11/2008 08:48 AM User scribbled:

> jrg wrote:
>> On 07/10/2008 09:09 PM User scribbled:
>>
>>> jrg wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2008 11:38 AM User scribbled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So what about the 8,000+ Firefox spyware that SpyBot blocks in windows,
>>>>> none of these are effective in Firefox for Linux? Does FF for Linux
>>>>> handle cookies differently?
>>>> what 8000+ are you referring to here?
>>>> Firefox doesn't do any spying I've ever heard of.
>>> I just installed SpyBot S&D in my daughters XP laptop and when I ran
>>> "immunize" it claimed to block 191 cookies, and 8,792 each of images,
>>> installations, and pop ups in the Firefox section.
>> thats /all/ stuff coming from outside - FF has /nothing/ to do with it.
>
> I never said it did.
> When I said "8000+ Firefox spyware" I was referring to the quantity of
> spyware items that SpyBot S&D supposedly blocks when you click immunize.
> By the way, the grand total FF + IE is 80,000+. I do believe that they
> exaggerate some.
>
>> FF handles cookies by your instructions, pop up as well.
>>
>> Learn your software
>
> Learn how to read
>
>
you wrote "8000+ firefox spyware."
there is no firefox spyware and I never received any such msg. in using
Spybot since it came out up to moving to linux.

Maybe you should read the Spybot manual - you have way too many flags
(80,000) (?) or maybe you should check the browsing history - somethings
up.

On 07/11/2008 08:48 AM User scribbled:



and BTW, sorry, can't offer much firsthand insight into linux treating
cookies anyway different - intuitively, I'd say no, it doesn't.